Assessing the usefulness of mineral licks containing herbal extracts with anti-parasitic properties for the control of gastrointestinal helminths in grazing sheep – a field trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary One of the alternative methods of parasite control, of particular importance in sustainable farming, is the use of medicinal plants. The specific aim of the present field trial was to assess the anti-parasitic effects of herbal extracts contained in a commercially available lick formulation for sheep. At the outset of this study conducted during the grazing season, all animals were de-wormed and then randomly assigned to one of the two separately kept groups (treatment and control), each consisting of 25 animals (11 ewes and 14 lambs). The treatment group received mineral licks containing the extracts of the plants with anti-parasitic properties, while control animals received standard mineral licks ad libitum . Rectal fecal samples were collected monthly from all animals for the McMaster analyses. There were no significant differences in the prevalence and intensity of helminth infections between the treatment and control groups. Thus, we were not able to ascertain the efficacy of the commercial herbal de-wormer tested for the control of gastrointestinal helminths in grazing ewes and their lambs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".